A Dog’s Life?

It’s a busy week here at Dog Spelled Forward World Headquarters, today’s post will be on the short side.

I came across this story last week and found it rather interesting and puzzling.

The researcher conducting 28 interviews (hardly a good sample) and then separated pet owners into three categories:

1. Humanists – “value” dogs very highly and see them as close companions. The article specifically uses the term “pseudo people.”
2. Protectionists – greatly value animals in general, not just as pets. They might be vegetarians.
3. Dominionists – frequently use dogs for tasks such as hunting and pest control. They consider them to be less important than people and and don;t bring them into their homes.

So I guess I would fall into “humanist,” as I see dog as wonderful companions. However, I don’t see them as “pseudo people” and find the term to be somewhere between ridiculous and mildly offensive. I see dogs as…dogs. That’s why I love them.

I see the “dominionist” category as rather extreme too. What about people who use their dogs for work and live with them too? Where do they fall in? Isn’t it possible to see a dog as a companion and use her for working sheep or controlling pests? (Yes, it is. I’ve met a few people who see things that way.)

I don’t know what to say about the protectionist category. It seems to imply that valuing dogs as companions is somehow mutually exclusive from valuing all animals? Does the mention of vegetarianism mean that all of these category is for “animal rights” people, some of which believe that owning pets is wrong?

When I see articles like this I have to wonder: what’s the point? Either the reporter did a terrible job summarizing the research, or the research wasn’t well very done.

What are your thoughts? Where do you think you fall into this list? What would you or subtract from the list?